Composite Project Status Dashboard

Composite Creation Methodology p. 2

Composite Project Status Dashboard p. 3
Composite Project Status Dashboard Components p. 5

© 2007 Corporate Executive Board. All Rights Reserved. 1

Background

Composite Creation Methodology

Real-World Inputs Are Structured to Identify Ideal Attributes of World-Class PMO Reports

1 2
Solicited Member Input Reviewed Member Dashboards and Scorecards
3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Conducted hundreds of member interviews Collected scorecards and dashboards, collectively

containing many individual metrics and components
3
Explored Secondary Information Sources

Researched books and papers written by academics,

scholars, and business professionals
5 4
Created Composite Reports Encapsulated Cross-Functional Perspective
Project Dashboard

Portfolio Dashboard

PMO Scorecard

Synthesized research and member-provided

metrics into three composite reports:
project dashboard, portfolio dashboard, Polled executives from across the enterprise
and PMO performance scorecard to understand specific needs for each audience

Source: PMO Executive Council research.

© 2007 Corporate Executive Board. All Rights Reserved. 2

 Composite Project Status Dashboard
2
Week of 5 June 2007
1
Overview Issues and Risk G

Budget G Project Issues Critical Project Risks

Issues New Open Closed Risk Description Symptoms Risk Prob- Impact Action
Schedule Y Owner ability
Current Period 10 2 8
Because we may not have enough If three data • Detailed resource and test plans
Year to Date 25 10 15
people to manage the data migration analysts A. ahead of flexible migration tool
Issues/Risk G and clean-up, the full transition may leave Alpha Smith
High High
not be achieved in six months. Test Results
Open Issue Resolution Plan Due Date Owner
Staff G Development Provide June 10 T. Amicci
Because we may not fully Pilot test • Estimate/test/validate/prototype
understand the current network resulting pages weight including best page
cost exceeding updated cost– G. Medium High
limitations, we may not be able in 7% reduction techniques
expectation. benefit analysis Carter
Scope Y to properly plan the system. downtime • Find the six seconds boundary
to business
sponsors. and the population impacted

3
Budget G /Schedule Y
Project Overall Schedule Critical Chain Status
Work in Progress
Planned Earned Actual Project Measurements Work Stream Schedule
PV BAC EV AC SPI=EV/AC EAC=BAC/ in Progress
SPI (Only Tasks That EV PV SPI BAC EAC
Belong to Project (Hours) (Hours) (Hours) (Hours) (Hours)
(Hours) (Hours) (Hours) (Hours) (Hours) (Hours) Critical Chain) BAC/SPI
800 22,100 320 360 0.88 25,114 Business segment 5 5 1.0 104 104
support
Project Overall Budget
Beta system 17 20 0.85 173 204
Planned Earned Actual Project Measurements testing
AC = Actual Cost (Dollars or Hours).
PV BAC EV AC CPI=EV/AC EAC=BAC/
BAC = Budget at Completion (Dollars or Hours).
CPI CPI = Cost Performance Index (Determined Through Earned Value Analysis).

($) ($) ($) ($) N/A ($) EAC = Estimate at Completion (Dollars or Hours).
EV = Earned Value.
26,850 1,476,220 21,690 19,200 1.13 1,336,930 PV = Planned Value.
SPI = Schedule Performance Index (Determined Through Earned Value Analysis).

Source: PMO Executive Council research.

© 2007 Corporate Executive Board. All Rights Reserved. 3

 Composite Project Status Dashboard (Continued)
Week of 5 June 2007
4
Staff G

Resource Allocation Overall Staff “Hot” Skills

in Critical Chain Tasks
Internal Staff Independent External Vendors Open Source Application Strategic
Life to Date (Hours) Contractors (Hours) (Hours) Developers (Hours) Architects
Work Stream in Progress Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual
(Only Tasks That Belong to Project Critical Chain)
Business Segment Support 950 800 100 95 150 148 80 95 100 73
Beta System Testing 500 553 50 55 30 33 20 24 65 42

5 6
Scope Y Business Sponsor
Engagement
Deliverable Functionality Project Change Requests
Attendance of Steering
Committee Meetings
Actual/ Project Change Total Approved
50
Anticipated Forecasted Request # # $ Hours
Delivery Delivery Current 75
Functionality Date Date Status Current Period 2 2 540 10
Display value 06/02 06/08 Closed Life to Date 11 6 1,750 120 100
headers with Unresolved Project Change Requests Attendance Risk
or without 0–50% Very High
documentation. Project Change Impact if Implemented Requested 50–75% High
75–100% Moderate
Search for values 06/06 06/12 Open Request (Hours) $ By 100% Low
by name.
Add ability to search 11 335 A. Smith
Display value images. 06/08 06/15 Open by priority values.
Add a new section 25 502 J. Doe
for file repository.
Source: PMO Executive Council research.

© 2007 Corporate Executive Board. All Rights Reserved. 4

 Composite Project Status Dashboard Components
Dashboard components are prioritized for executive-level
attention with forward-looking metrics at the forefront,
followed by descriptive trending metrics.
Composite Project Status DashboardEarly warnings on what might go
wrong provide executives with
2
Week of 5 June 2007
1 the ability to take risk mitigation
Overview Issues and Risk G actions on high-ranking risks.
Y Project Issues Critical Project Risks
This section provides Budget This section provides
an overview of project visibility into
Issuescurrent New Open Closed Risk Description Symptoms Risk Prob- Impact Action
health criteria. Schedule G cumulative project
and Owner ability
Current Period 10 2 8
issues andYear risks. Because we may not have enough If three data • Detailed resource and test plans
to Date 25 10 15
people to manage the data migration analysts A. ahead of flexible migration tool
Issues/Risk G and clean-up, the full transition may leave Alpha Smith
High High
This section provides a high-level
not be achieved in six months. summary
Test Results
Open Issue Resolution Plan Due Date Owner
Staff G of projectBecause
issuesweinmaythenot current
fully period
Pilotand
test • Estimate/test/validate/prototype
Development Provide June 10 T. Amicci
cost exceeding updated cost– to date. Itunderstand
dives deeper
the currentbynetwork
providingresulting
detailed G. Medium High
pages weight including best page
limitations, we may not be able to in 7% reduction techniques
expectation. benefit analysis information on plan
status, resolution plan, due Carter
By providing very clear Scope Y to business
properly the system. downtime • Find the six seconds boundary
sponsors. date, and owner for unresolved issues. and the population impacted
and specific definitions
for Green, Yellow, and3
Red, project summary Budget G /Schedule Y
information becomes This section provides visibility
Project Overall Schedule Critical Chain Status
actionable. It is into project budget and Work in Progress
important to remove schedule, Project
both atMeasurements
the high level
Planned Earned Actual Work Stream Schedule
any subjectivity from and at the critical chain level. in Progress
PV BAC EV AC SPI=EV/AC EAC=BAC/
these definitions. SPI (Only Tasks That EV PV SPI BAC EAC
Belong to Project (Hours) (Hours) (Hours) (Hours) (Hours)
(Hours) (Hours) (Hours) (Hours) (Hours) (Hours) Critical Chain) BAC/SPI
800 22,100 320 360 0.88 25,114 Business segment 5 5 1.0 104 104
support
Project Overall Budget
Beta system 17 20 0.85 173 204
Earned Value Analysis Planned Earned Actual Project Measurements testing
(EVA) is used to PV BAC EV AC CPI=EV/AC EAC=BAC/ AC = Actual Cost (Dollars or Hours). Tasks on the project critical chain affect overall
BAC = Budget at Completion (Dollars or Hours).
determine overall CPI project schedule. That’s why it is important for
CPI = Cost Performance Index (Determined Through Earned Value Analysis).
project schedule and ($) ($) ($) ($) N/A ($) EAC = Estimate at Completion (Dollars or Hours). the manager to have detailed information on their
EV = Earned Value.
budget trending as well 26,850 1,476,220 21,690 19,200 1.13 1,336,930 PV = Planned Value.
progress. Again, EVA measures are used to determine
as future forecast. if aValue
SPI = Schedule Performance Index (Determined Through Earned taskAnalysis).
is being completed according to plan.
Source: PMO Executive Council research.

© 2007 Corporate Executive Board. All Rights Reserved. 5

 Composite Project Status Dashboard Components (Continued)

Composite Project Status Dashboard (Continued)

Week of 5 June 2007
4
This section provides visibility into resource allocation for
Staff G
tasks on the project critical chain. Duration of these tasks
Resource Allocation can increase if there is a resource shortage,
Overall Staff which in turn “Hot” Skills
in Critical Chain Tasks will result in project schedule delay.
Internal Staff Independent External Vendors Open Source Application Strategic
Life to Date (Hours) Contractors (Hours) (Hours) Developers (Hours) Architects
Work Stream in Progress Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual
(Only Tasks That Belong to Project Critical Chain) This section is used
This section is used to provide visibility to provide73a measure
Business Segment Support 950 800 100 95 150 148 80 95 100
into project functionality checklist as for business or project
well as changes
Beta System Testingin project scope. 500 553 50 55 30 33 20 24 65
sponsor 42
engagement.

5 6
Scope Y Business Sponsor
Engagement
Deliverable Functionality Project Change Requests
Attendance of Steering
Committee Meetings
Actual/ Project Change Total Approved
50
Anticipated Forecasted Request # # $ Hours
Delivery Delivery Current 75
Functionality Date Date Status Current Period 2 2 540 10
Display value 06/02 06/08 Closed Life to Date 11 6 1,750 120 100
headers with Unresolved Project Change Requests Attendance Risk
or without 0–50% Very High
documentation. Project Change Impact if Implemented Requested 50–75% High
75–100% Moderate
Search for values 06/06 06/12 Open Request (Hours) $ By 100% Low
by name.
Add ability to search by 11 335 A. Smith
Display value images. 06/08 06/15 Open priority values.
Providing cumulative and detailed value for
Project Change Requests enables managers to Add a new section for 25 502 J. Doe
make informed choices on future budget and file repository.
resource allocation decisions.

Source: PMO Executive Council research.

© 2007 Corporate Executive Board. All Rights Reserved. 6